News

Arab, European states call Israel and

Palestine to restart talks
Foreign ministers from France, Egypt, Germany and Jordan back beginning of talks on the basis
of two-state solution.

The foreign ministers of Egypt, France and Jordan speak at a news conference in Amman
[Foreign Ministry of Egypt/Twitter]
24 Sep 2020

Foreign ministers from four Arab and European countries meeting in Jordan have said a two-
state solution is the only path to end the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict, calling for a
resumption of negotiations between the two sides.

The top diplomats from France, Egypt and Jordan held a meeting on Thursday in Amman.
Germany’s Heiko Maas joined online as he was forced to go into quarantine a day earlier due to
a coronavirus scare.

There will be “no comprehensive and lasting peace without solving the conflict on the basis of
the two-state solution”, Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman al-Safadi told reporters following the
meeting.

“There is no other solution,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian agreed. The
Palestinians and the Israelis need to prove their commitment to dialogue “and we are ready to
support this process”, he added.

Arab-Israel deals praised

The four ministers also praised recent deals establishing ties between Israel and the United Arab
Emirates and Bahrain.
Maas welcomed the agreements, which “show that peace in the region is possible”. Egypt’s
Sameh Shoukry also said the deals are an “important development that would lead to more
support and interaction in order to reach a comprehensive peace”.

Egypt was the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. Jordan followed in
1994. Last week, the UAE and Bahrain signed US-brokered treaties with Israel, prompting
condemnation by the Palestinians.

Palestinians see the two accords as a betrayal that further weakens a long-standing pan-Arab
position calling for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory and acceptance of Palestinian
statehood in return for establishing relations with Arab countries.

On Tuesday, Palestine quit its current chairmanship of Arab League meetings, condemning as
dishonourable any Arab agreements with Israel.

Earlier this month, the Palestinians failed to persuade the Arab League to condemn member
nations breaking ranks and signing formal deals with Israel.

Source : Al Jazeera, News Agencies

Palestinians tear gassed in protests against

Israeli settlements
Israeli army injures dozens of Palestinian protesters during two demonstrations in northern
occupied West Bank.

The demonstrators were also commemorating 72 years since the Nakba, or catastrophe, which
marks the day hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes
by Zionist paramilitaries [Issam Rimawi/Anadolu]
16 May 2020

Israeli forces have fired tear gas at Palestinians protesting against the expansion of Israeli
settlements, considered illegal under international law, in northern occupied West Bank, injuring
dozens of them, according to local media reports.

Friday’s two demonstrations in al-Sawiya and Kafr Qaddum coincided with the 72nd anniversary
of the Nakba, or the “day of catastrophe”, in which Israel was officially declared a state
following the forced removal of more than 750,000 Palestinians from their homes and the
destruction of some 500 villages and towns.

Keep Reading
Annexation of Jordan Valley to ‘complete 1948 catastrophe’Nakba Day: For Palestinians, not
just an historical eventJordan warns Israel of ‘massive conflict’ over annexation

Later on Friday, at least three Palestinians were shot by Israeli soldiers after they allegedly
attempted to attack a military post in Abu Dis, a village near occupied East Jerusalem.

“An attack was thwarted moments ago when IDF [Israeli army] troops spotted 3 Palestinians
hurling explosives & lighting Molotov cocktails, preparing to attack an IDF post,” the Israeli
military said in a statement on its Twitter page. 

“Our troops responded with fire and thwarted the attack,” the statement added.

The Palestinian Red Crescent Society said the three men were shot with live ammunition and
were transferred to hospital for treatment.

Following a brief lull of confrontations during the coronavirus pandemic, tensions have risen in
recent days leading up to the expected swearing-in of Israel’s new coalition government whose
agenda includes a possible declaration of sovereignty over Jewish settlements and the Jordan
Valley in the West Bank – a de facto annexation.

The Palestinians want the West Bank as part of a future state and deem Israeli settlements there
illegal, as do most world powers, but Israel and the United States dispute that view.

As many as 50,000 Palestinians living in the Jordan Valley own about 12,355 acres (5,000
hectares) of agricultural land, which constitutes half of the total agricultural land providing food
security to Palestinians in the West Bank.

Farmers, shepherds face loss of livelihoods in occupied West Bank (2:38)

Palestinian officials have threatened to abolish bilateral agreements with Israel if it goes ahead
with the plan to annex parts of the West Bank as early as July 1.
On Friday, Jordan’s King Abdulla II warned Israel of a “massive conflict” if it went ahead with
the plan.

“Leaders who advocate a one-state solution do not understand what that would mean,” he said in
an interview published by Germany’s Der Spiegel.

“What would happen if the Palestinian National Authority collapsed? There would be more
chaos and extremism in the region. If Israel really annexed the West Bank in July, it would lead
to a massive conflict with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,” he said.

Meanwhile, the European Union pledged to launch diplomatic efforts in an attempt to stop the
annexation from taking place.

The potential Israeli move is in line with US President Donald Trump’s so-called Middle East
proposal, which was unveiled in January.

Trump’s plan, which was categorically rejected by the Palestinians as utterly biased in favour of
Israel, gives Israel the green light to annex settlements and strategic areas of the West Bank.

For much of the international community, such a move by Israel would amount to a grave
violation of international law and crush hopes of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. It could also further inflame regional tensions.

Source : Al Jazeera

How Palestinian youth would solve the

conflict with Israel
Young Palestinians share their opinions on the solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, 70
years after the Nakba.
Built as a state for the Jews, Israel discriminates against Palestinians in every aspect of their lives
[Showkat Shafi/Al Jazeera]
By 
Zena Tahhan
15 May 2018

Occupied East Jerusalem – Palestinians are marking 70 years since the ethnic cleansing of their
homeland by Zionist militias to create the state of Israel. The event is called the Nakba, or
“Catastrophe”, in Palestinian history.

For Palestinians, the establishment of Israel in 1948 opened a chapter of collective suffering,
wars and displacement. Built as a state for Jews, Israel discriminates against Palestinians in many
aspects of their lives.

Keep Reading
UN says Libya sides reach ‘permanent ceasefire’ dealCycling Under Siege in GazaNagorno-
Karabakh: Five things to know about the latest crisisWhy are they fighting over Nagorno-
Karabakh? | Start Here

Today, Palestinians in different parts of the country carry different identity documents and live
different realities, separated by an 8-metre-high concrete wall and military checkpoints. 

The more than three million Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem
face home demolitions, arbitrary arrests and land theft on a near-daily basis.

Two million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have been living under an airtight land, sea and air
blockade for more than a decade and suffer from acute poverty.

The 1.8 million Palestinians inside Israel, carrying Israeli citizenship, are an involuntary
minority, discriminated against by more than 50 laws for not being Jewish.

On the 70th commemoration of the Nakba, Al Jazeera spoke to young Palestinians, asking them
what they think the solution is to what has been dubbed the world’s most intractable conflict.

Marah Maghamsi, 21, family expelled from the village of

Mjadel, now living in Nazareth

Marah Maghamsi, 21, student [Showkat Shafi/Al Jazeera]

In general, discrimination is not natural. But when we have a colonial entity that was built on the
basis of ethnicity – a state built for the Jewish people – discrimination is something very natural
in this context; it is expected.

This discrimination has created a sense of inferiority within us. We have started to see Israelis as
superior to us, because of systematic [Israeli] policies over a long period.

This is a challenge we face as Palestinians in the 1948 territories [inside Israel]. We start to
think: ‘I’m worth less than a Jew,’ even though I am from here and I’ve been living here, and
they came from Europe, Africa, Russia and other places.

The solution to this conflict is to get rid of colonialism and establish one state.

We want a state for all its citizens. A state that can guarantee the return of the refugees. A state
that can preserve our culture, history and Canaanite civilisation, that respects the suffering we
underwent as a people from Ottoman, to British, to Israeli colonialism.

We have to develop our methods of resistance. Israel is blocking our resistance methods from
every direction. We can’t work on one level. We can’t just work on changing international
opinions, or just using armed resistance – we have to work on all aspects to develop our tools
and tell the world we are under occupation.

Muntaser Dkeidik, 34, from occupied East Jerusalem 

Dkeidik, 34, works at a youth community centre in Jerusalem [Showkat Shafi/Al Jazeera]

The 70 years since the Nakba have been 70 years of the Israeli occupation trying to erase our
identity every day.

But despite all Israeli efforts to do that, we have managed to preserve our identity, as much as we
can, as Palestinians in Jerusalem. 

Palestine is from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea. Historical Palestine is the one that
we believe in.

Every day, the [Israeli] occupation expands in Jerusalem. It is clear that the occupation is
dominating education, health, economy, tourism in the city.

The only thing we have managed to retain control over is our identity, which is very present in
the minds of youth and with their refusal to obey [the occupation].
There is no solution to the conflict because it is an existential, spatial, ideological conflict. It is
not a business deal – you take a piece, and I’ll take a piece. It is linked to something ideological,
religious. It is a conflict over space and existence.

It is connected too, over Israeli beliefs, Zionist beliefs, that they do not want to let go of in any
shape or form. [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu today is demanding a takeover of
the occupied West Bank. The construction of settlement homes has not stopped over the past 10
years and more.

Today we drive from Jerusalem to Nablus, and the road is filled with settlements. And from
Jerusalem to Hebron, there are settlements the whole way.

What solution? What end to the occupation? With the tools and policies they’re using? Has the
peace process progressed? What positives have we benefited from? It’s the opposite. Over the
past 10 or 15 years we lost all the lands in the occupied West Bank that connect our cities, and
now they have Israeli settlements on them.

What’s the solution? 

Adam Hamayel, 28, from Ramallah in the occupied West

Bank 

Adam Hamayel, 28, ceramic art teacher [Showkat Shafi/Al Jazeera] 

I personally do not see an end to the occupation in the near future.

But since the occupation has been here for 70 years, and we are forced to live in this situation –
it’s not that we’re happy about it – and there are Arabs and Jews, I think there should be a
temporary solution.

I think there can be some kind of coexistence between the two sides based on laws and rights.
There should be red lines that can’t be crossed. I think this would benefit both Palestinians and
Israelis, so there can be some kind of stability in the region, individuals can have their rights and
live their lives far from difficulties, and we can overcome the obstacles of violence and lack of
stability and the bad economic situation.

I think this is what most countries around the world look for; it’s so we can end this conflict that
is causing distress in the whole Middle East.
Ezz Odeh, 19, from Nazareth

Ezz Odeh, 19, student [Showkat Shafi/Al Jazeera]

[In the 1948 territories] you feel like an outsider. This is not your state, and that’s apparent in
every detail, big or small.

Whether it is state emblems, or the fact that you can’t use your language freely as any Jew can,
or that you do not get the budget you’re entitled to. You do not have a decent standard of living
like any other person.

Today if you want to say Palestine, one person tells you Palestine is from the [Jordan] river to
the [Mediterranean] sea, another person says Palestine is on the 1967 borders [East Jerusalem,
West Bank and Gaza]. 

Today, political parties and institutions are not working together towards the same goal. 

[But] irrespective of the process that we’re going through as Palestinians, our rights are our
rights. Liberation is a right. It does not matter if we’re not able to organise, or there are ongoing
discussions between us as a people, it is our right to be free. No one can tell us ‘only when you
organise yourselves, then you can be free’.

I personally believe we can all live together in one state. The refugees must return to their
homes, as per all human rights conventions. We must learn from the experiences of other
countries, such as the South African experience. We must also have a measure of human rights
and raise popular pressure to really create this one state. 

Hala Shoman, 25, from the occupied Gaza Strip 

Hala Shoman, 25, dentist [Hosam Salem/Al Jazeera]

The main problem is the occupation. 

I am a graduate of dentistry. I tried to leave the Gaza Strip to do a PhD in Turkey, but I missed
the opportunity because the border is closed.

Ending the occupation as a system is the first step towards a solution, and after that, we can
decide whether we as a Palestinian people will accept the presence of foreigners living with us in
the same country, or if they should return to their countries and call for their right of return.

Most of them come from Germany and other European countries.

Addie Awwad, 33, from Ramallah in the occupied West

Bank

Addie Awwad, 33, works at an international development agency [Showkat Shafi/Al Jazeera] 

The two-state solution – the most feasible solution – is dead. If you look at the reality on the
ground, we’re shifting towards a one-state reality that enshrines apartheid in the West Bank and
East Jerusalem.

Also, continuous aggressive Israeli policies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem hinder any
prospects for future solutions. 

The Palestinians are weak as well, so I’m not sure what a solution would be in the future.
I can say that Palestinians have lost hope. The young generation does not foresee any solution if
you maintain the current Palestinian leadership and the radical Israeli government. 

Nouran Abbasi, 20, from the village of Shefa-Amr in the

Galilee

Nouran Abbasi, 20, student [Showkat Shafi/Al Jazeera]

The [Israeli] occupation is working to divide us, to make us struggle for demands, not for
liberation.

The solution is to put this struggle for demands to the side and work on a struggle for liberation.

A liberation struggle begins with awareness, learning from past experiences, such as the two
Intifadas [popular Palestinian uprisings] and the 1936 revolt, and reading history correctly, not
from the perspective of the victim but from the perspective of the freedom fighter.

We are not victims, we are entitled to our rights, and we have the methods to succeed. 

This is where the solution starts. If I were to paint you a picture of the solution, I would be doing
the solution injustice.

Yousef Taha, 23, from the village of Kabul near Acre 

Yousef Taha, 23, student [Showkat Shafi/Al Jazeera]

The right of return of Palestinian refugees is the first step in the solution. After that, I believe we
can create one democratic state where Palestinians can express their demands freely.

The state cannot be a Jewish state if we want a solution, because giving priority to the Jewish
people means the state will not be representative of the Palestinian people as well.

We have a clear national identity, but at the same time, the society we live in does not understand
us, and this is a big problem. You feel lost. You talk to people who do not understand you. 

I’ve been living in Tel Aviv for three years; I’m studying there. I feel very alienated.

Follow Zena Tahhan on Twitter: @zenatahhan

OPINION
Opinions|Conflict

Israel-Palestine conflict: A turn in western

thinking?
UN speeches avoided mentioning the most dramatic development: A new phase of the conflict.

Richard Falk

Richard Falk is Albert G Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton

University and Research Fellow, Orfalea Center of Global Studies. He is also former UN
Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.

5 Oct 2014

Netanyahu called attention to the regional shifts in the Arab world, writes Falk [AP]
Although UN speeches are rarely signifiers of political realities, the presentations by Mahmoud Abbas on
behalf of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and of Benjamin Netanyahu,
the prime minister of Israel, contained some elements worth noticing.

These speeches came as the conflict enters yet another stage, underscored by the recent vicious attack on Gaza
that persisted for 50 days, but also by some fundamental developments that set the stage for Operation
Protective Edge. It is something of a weather vane of the global view of the conflict that when Abbas spoke he
received thunderous applause, while Netanyahu addressed a solemn half empty UN chamber.

Keep Reading
UN says Libya sides reach ‘permanent ceasefire’ dealCycling Under Siege in GazaNagorno-
Karabakh: Five things to know about the latest crisisWhy are they fighting over Nagorno-
Karabakh? | Start Here

Above all, the growing indication that the Israeli leadership believes that it can impose a unilateral solution by
incorporating all or most of the West Bank within Israel, as well as further implementing policies of ethnic
cleansing in East Jerusalem. As such, there is no further need to engage in the diplomatic charades initiated by
the Oslo peace process in 1993. That phase seems over, having been helpful to the expansionist designs of
Israel and harmful to those on the Palestinian side ready as early as 1988 to settle for a sovereign state within
the 1967 borders, the supposed international consensus view of how to end the conflict. The last attempt to
engage in Oslo diplomacy was muscled into being by the strong-arm tactics of US Secretary of State John
Kerry.

Netanyahu’s anxiety

The regional context also brought about some new political manoeuvring that became evident during the
Israeli assault on Gaza, and its acknowledgement was the sole innovative feature of Netanyahu’s UN speech.
The negative development from Netanyahu’s perspective was his anxiety that pressure on Iran would be
relaxed in the context of an agreement about the Iranian nuclear programme that had acquired added political
relevance in connection with Washington’s effort to cobble together the strongest possible coalition to fight
ISIL.

It is something of a weather vane of the global view of the conflict that when Abbas spoke he
received thunderous applause, while Netanyahu addressed a solemn half empty UN chamber.

This turn in western thinking clearly bothered Netanyahu who insisted that the more moderate face of the
Iranian government since Rouhani’s election as president in 2013, was an illusion fostered by Tehran public
relations efforts.

In his speech, Netanyahu called attention to the regional shifts in the Arab world towards an acknowledgement
of “shared interests” with Israel in the defeat of militant Islam in all of its manifestations, which of course
included Hamas – identified by Netanyahu as a branch on the same “poisonous tree as ISIL”.

What has become evident in recent years is that Saudi Arabia, and some of the Gulf countries, are far more
threatened by political Islam that aspires to power by democratic means and on the basis of its grassroots
strength than it is either by Israel’s military dominance in the region or even its bitter sectarian rivalry
throughout the region with Shia Iran. This Gulf priority was clearly expressed by siding with the 2013 military
coup in Egypt despite the massacres perpetrated against Sunni Muslim followers of the Muslim Brotherhood
after the Morsi-led government was overthrown. This surprising new alignment was vividly exhibited during
Protective Edge.
UN membership for Palestine?

Speaking on behalf of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas naturally expressed a different view of the situation. He
placed great stress on the extent to which the Israeli intensive settlement process had destroyed any prospect of
resolving the conflict through diplomacy. Abbas seemed to finally recognise what had been long evident to
many Palestinians, that participating in Washington’s peace process operated mainly as a facilitator of Israeli
settlement building plans, and was contrary to Palestine’s interest. He didn’t repudiate the Oslo approach
altogether, but he did insist that direct negotiations could only be resumed if Israel unconditionally stopped
further expansions of the settlements.

Abbas’ diplomacy moved in new directions: He submitted a formal request to the Secretary-General to forward
to the Security Council for action on Palestine’s request for full membership in the organisation and an end to
Israeli occupation in three years. This move undoubtedly irritates Washington as it may force the US to use its
veto, unless its diplomatic pressure can avoid nine affirmative votes in favour of the resolution.

More important than this bid for membership in the UN, was the willingness of Abbas to associate the
Palestinian national struggle with a heightened discourse of denunciation. For the first time, Abbas raised the
spectre of genocide: Israel was accused of a “new war of genocide perpetrated against the Palestinian people”.
And while doing so, affirmed the Palestinian right of resistance against Israel’s occupation.

What may be most significant here is that the formal authority structure representing the Palestinian people on
the global stage seemed to be in temporary sync with pro-Palestinian civil society activists around the world.
For instance, the Russell Tribunal (RT) at an Extraordinary Session held in Brussels on September 24, focused
on charges of genocide directed against Israel in connection with Protective Edge. RT found Israel guilty of the
distinct crime of “incitement to genocide” under the 1948 Genocide Convention as well as aggravated crimes
against humanity. The testimony at Brussels established strong circumstantial evidence of a genocidal intent on
Israel’s part. Nevertheless, this evidence failed to convince the jury that Israel’s leaders possessed the specific
intent required to establish the crime of genocide.

What now?

For genocide to enter into the discourse of the Palestinian movement is a bold development that responded to
the ravaging of Palestinian civilian society during this third orchestrated massacre by Israel carried out against
the people of Gaza in the last six years. It is not only that more than 70 percent of the Palestinian casualties
were civilians. It needs to be understood that the entire Gaza population was locked into the combat zone
during the 50-day onslaught, resulting in collective traumatisation. The civilian population was denied the
possibility of escaping the war zone by crossing the border to become refugees, usually the option of desperate
last resort in conflicts of this character.

As is currently evident in Syria and Iraq, tens of thousands have been seeking sanctuary by leaving the
country. It is this most minimal form of humanitarian assistance that has been denied to all Gazans ever since
Hamas started governing in mid-2007.

These UN speeches, notable for several reasons, avoided mentioning the most dramatic development: the new
phase of the conflict. Israel is now openly moving towards a one-state solution that will involve incorporating
the West Bank and consolidating control in East Jerusalem. Palestine is continuing its state-building project on
the West Bank coupled with the realisation that the political energy of its national movement has shifted to a
combination of civil society activism and Hamas resilience and resistance. Whether this new phase will bring
the two peoples any closer to a sustainable peace with justice seems highly unlikely.
Richard Falk is Albert G Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and
Research Fellow, Orfalea Center of Global Studies. He is also former UN Special Rapporteur on
Palestinian human rights.

OPINION
Opinions

Israel, Palestine and the passage of time

After 70 years of futile diplomacy and conflict, time may well be on the side of the Palestinians.

John Bell

John Bell is Director of the Middle East Programme at the Toledo International Centre
for Peace in Madrid. He is a former UN and Canadian diplomat, and served as Political
Adviser to the Personal Representative of the UN Secretary-General for southern
Lebanon and adviser to the Canadian government.

29 Apr 2014

Enough time has passed to know that US diplomacy doesn't work in this area, writes Bell [EPA]

As peace talks stand on their last legs, or threaten to morph into another extended exercise in
political agony, some are already writing obituaries about the Kerry process and the two-state
solution. Over the last nine months, while the talks were taking place, Israel approved tenders for
14,000 new settler homes, a pace described as “unprecedented” by Peace Now. Meanwhile,
Hamas and Fatah have demonstrated surprising initiative, and announced a surprise transitional
unity government to the dismay of Israel and the US mediators.

It seems very likely that another attempt has bit the dust, and gone the way of its forbearers.
Indeed, many are distracted by other international events, or simply fed up with the endless
peace process. During two decades of such efforta, an intifadah has occurred, Iraq was invaded,
several Arab dictators have fallen, and Syria crumbled into a violent dust – and that’s only in the
Middle East. Time has eroded major countries and bastions of power, but the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict holds on, intractable, defiant of time.

Enough time has passed to know that US diplomacy doesn’t work in this area, but not enough, it
seems, to accept an alternative mediator, method or solution. Much has changed on the ground in
Israel and Palestine as well from the rise (and decline?) of Hamas, to the strengthening of the
political right in Israel. Settlement building in the West Bank has expanded, as has the gobbling
up of East Jerusalem, and the refugees’ plight keeps worsening, but the political solution to the
conflict remains elusive.

Many have indeed concluded that the two-state solution is not feasible, leaving a troublesome
selection between status quo, chronic conflict and a one-state solution. Time has passed, yet, it
remains a defining factor for both peoples.

Time has eroded the idea of Israel as David vs the Arab Goliath, public and political opinion
across the world is firmly with the Palestinians as the victim, even if that has not yet be
translated into political pressure on Israel.

Israel continues to play for time, as it has from its genesis. A tactical brilliance, and a confidence
in the practical, as well as short-term advantage, have always defined Zionism – and many
Israelis are secure in that strategy. This is compounded by a disbelief in long-term
prognostications and the need to react to them today: “In the long run, we’re all dead,” as
economist John Keynes famously said. Given this, the bottom line is that Israel does not yet feel
the imperative for a two-state solution, ie, the need to make the sacrifices today for tomorrow.

The sacrifices of today

For the Palestinians, on the other hand, despite considerable suffering, the fall back is the long
term, and the inevitability of Israel passing into oblivion through war or slower erosion,
demographic or otherwise. Palestinians may lose the military struggle and never settle in the
negotiations, but they have time on their side. They are already making the sacrifices of today for
tomorrow – or so it is hoped.

Despite these varying bets, time may come back to haunt the sides, and especially Israel. New
forces have already been unleashed that will only grow. Time has eroded the idea of Israel as
David vs the Arab Goliath, public and political opinion across the world is firmly with the
Palestinians as the victim, even if that has not yet be translated into political pressure on Israel.

Europeans are targeting products from the settlements, some pension plans are disinvesting or
considering it, and the b BDS movement, boycott, divestment and sanctions, is not stopping.
Israel’s settlement enterprise is considered illegitimate everywhere except among a few diehard
supporters. It may simply be a question of time until the pressure on Israel builds sufficiently.
The two state solution may be simply delayed until the “political time” necessary for the Israeli
system to absorb the inevitable takes place, or cause Israel a systemic political indigestion.
The great irony is that, while Israelis pursue their agenda oblivious of time, change may
eventually catch up and in unexpected ways. Time has its own logic and a somewhat twisted
humour. By the time Israelis are ready for two states, it may well be time for a one-state solution,
and a full Palestinian readiness for that eventuality. Settlements will have grown, the discussions
on the toughest issues, Jerusalem and the refugees, will have gotten more difficult, and the region
will have experienced a few more flips and somersaults. Any readiness to compromise with
Israel will have slipped that much further into the distance, possibly beyond any retrievable
horizon.

Such is the nature of the game of those who flirt with or trample on time. It can wreak its nasty
and unexpected revenge. Israelis can take credit for having fought off the corrosive effect of
Middle East politics for as long as possible, but their belief in the immediate has blinded them to
the imperatives of the long term; what worked in the past may not work in the future.
Palestinians can take succour in their “sumud” (Arabic for steadfastness) in the face of a
powerful enemy, but there have been opportunities lost in favour of ideals. Indeed, if Palestinians
don’t complete their unification process, their cause may be subsumed over time into much
larger and more powerful regional forces: Jerusalem is not only a Palestinian cause, and the
refugees are an issue across the Arab world.

Despite all the hubris derived in standing up against venerable time, or its denial, time is the
victor in the end. This is especially so for those who neither anticipate nor adapt to its endlessly
creative dispensations.

After 70 years or more of futile diplomacy and conflict, it may well be time for Israelis and
Palestinians to try a new tack. Instead of a hyper fixation on the short term, or a passive bet on
the long, they can shape possibilities through bold sacrifices and innovative solutions. Only this
way does anyone earn time’s elusive respect and succesfully influence its speeding course.

John Bell is Director of the Middle East Programme at the Toledo International Centre for
Peace in Madrid.